protectmarriage.com - Yes on 8 v. Debra Bowen
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9312
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- PRA requires political committees to file semiannual disclosures identifying significant donors, with data published by the Secretary of State.
- Prop 8 Committees supported the November 2008 Prop 8; disclosures were made pre- and post-election as required by PRA.
- Appellants challenged PRA facially (and as applied) and sought injunctions exempting future reporting and purging past records.
- District court granted summary judgment for the State on all counts; Appellants appealed.
- Court affirmed facial challenges but held as-applied challenges non-justiciable, remanding to vacate that portion of the district court’s opinion.
- Appellants’ disclosures have been publicly available for years; websites and media have republished donor information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PRA disclosure thresholds and post-election reporting survive constitutional scrutiny | Appellants contention: thresholds and post-election reports unconstitutional. | California contends thresholds survive exacting scrutiny and post-election reporting serves informational, integrity, and enforcement interests. | Facial challenges upheld; thresholds/post-election reporting survive. |
| Whether the as-applied challenges are ripe or moot and subject to preemption | Appellants seek purge relief and forward-looking exemptions. | State argues mootness and non-justiciability due to dissemination of records. | As-applied challenges dismissed as non-justiciable; remanded to vacate that portion. |
| Whether the case is capable of repetition yet evading review | Appellants assert the mootness exception applies due to ongoing risk of similar enforcement. | Majority finds no inherent duration or likely repetition to justify the exception. | Majority concludes exception does not apply; dissent argues it does. |
| Whether the forward-looking, pre-enforcement claim is ripe for review | Appellants argue imminent future campaigns would trigger PRA disclosures and harms. | State contends claims are speculative and not ripe. | Forward-looking claims deemed not ripe by majority; dissent finds ripe. |
Key Cases Cited
- Family PAC v. McKenna, 685 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2012) (threshold disclosures survive exacting scrutiny in ballot context)
- Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (S. Ct. 2010) (disclosure-related interests substantial; informs electorate and integrity)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (informational and anti-corruption interests support disclosure)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (exacting scrutiny framework for disclosure; burden on speech modest)
- Church of Scientology of California v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (U.S. Supreme Court 1992) (government possession of records can be remedied; not moot if relief possible)
- Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312 (U.S. Supreme Court 1991) (ripeness and enforcement considerations in pre-enforcement challenges)
- Enyart v. National Conference of Bar Examiners, 630 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2011) (capable-of-repetition exception analyzed in pre-enforcement context)
- Getman v. California, 328 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003) (ripeness for First Amendment campaign-disclosure challenges)
- Renne v. Geary (cited again for ripeness), 501 U.S. 312 (1991) (precedent on ripe challenges to pre-enforcement issues)